open access

Vol 91, No 5 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-05-29
Get Citation

Comparison of female sexual function and sexual function of their partners between groups of pregnant and non-pregnant women

Ali Doğukan Anğın1, Enis Özkaya2, Mehtap Çetin3, Ismet Gün4, Onder Sakin1, Lokman Tekin Ertekin1, Ramazan Denizli1, Kazibe Koyuncu1, Emine Eda Akalın1
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2020.0062
·
Pubmed: 32495927
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(5):235-239.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Sciences University Kartal Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Sciences University Zeynep Kamil Women and Children’s Diseases Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Burhaniye State Hospital, Balıkesir, Turkey
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus

open access

Vol 91, No 5 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2020-05-29

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the female sexual function index and sexual function of their partners between groups of pregnant
and non-pregnant Turkish women.
Material and methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 321 women, including 252 healthy pregnant and 69 healthy
nonpregnant women. Assessment of female sexual function index (FSFI), ARIZONA scores of their partners were compared
in relation to some of the sociodemographic characteristics and pregnancy trimesters.
Results: Comparison of the groups revealed a significantly higher FSFI score in the non-pregnant group whereas the ARIZONA
score was significantly higher in the pregnant group (p < 0.001). Age, gravidity, parity and smoking rate adjusted
mean differences of scores remained statistically significant (p < 0.001). Higher ARIZONA (> 11) score rate was significantly
higher in pregnant groups (55.6% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001). Pregnancy was a risk factor for high ARIZONA score [OR: 4.1 (95%
CI 2.2–7.6, p < 0.001)]. Lower FSFI score rate was significantly higher in the pregnant group (26.4% vs 69.4%, p < 0.001).
Pregnancy was a risk factor for low FSFI score [OR: 6.4 (95% CI 3.5–11.7, p < 0.001)].
Conclusions: Both female sexual function index and ARIZONA scores of their partners were found to be significantly different
between groups of pregnant and nonpregnant Turkish women which indicated altered sexual function of couples
during pregnancy.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the female sexual function index and sexual function of their partners between groups of pregnant
and non-pregnant Turkish women.
Material and methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 321 women, including 252 healthy pregnant and 69 healthy
nonpregnant women. Assessment of female sexual function index (FSFI), ARIZONA scores of their partners were compared
in relation to some of the sociodemographic characteristics and pregnancy trimesters.
Results: Comparison of the groups revealed a significantly higher FSFI score in the non-pregnant group whereas the ARIZONA
score was significantly higher in the pregnant group (p < 0.001). Age, gravidity, parity and smoking rate adjusted
mean differences of scores remained statistically significant (p < 0.001). Higher ARIZONA (> 11) score rate was significantly
higher in pregnant groups (55.6% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001). Pregnancy was a risk factor for high ARIZONA score [OR: 4.1 (95%
CI 2.2–7.6, p < 0.001)]. Lower FSFI score rate was significantly higher in the pregnant group (26.4% vs 69.4%, p < 0.001).
Pregnancy was a risk factor for low FSFI score [OR: 6.4 (95% CI 3.5–11.7, p < 0.001)].
Conclusions: Both female sexual function index and ARIZONA scores of their partners were found to be significantly different
between groups of pregnant and nonpregnant Turkish women which indicated altered sexual function of couples
during pregnancy.

Get Citation

Keywords

female sexual function index; ARIZONA score; pregnancy; partner

About this article
Title

Comparison of female sexual function and sexual function of their partners between groups of pregnant and non-pregnant women

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 5 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

235-239

Published online

2020-05-29

DOI

10.5603/GP.2020.0062

Pubmed

32495927

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(5):235-239.

Keywords

female sexual function index
ARIZONA score
pregnancy
partner

Authors

Ali Doğukan Anğın
Enis Özkaya
Mehtap Çetin
Ismet Gün
Onder Sakin
Lokman Tekin Ertekin
Ramazan Denizli
Kazibe Koyuncu
Emine Eda Akalın

References (24)
  1. Sexual Dysfunctions. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. .
  2. Garcia S, Moreno S, Aponte H. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in female outpatients and personnel at a Colombian hospital: correlation with hormonal profile. J Sex Med. 2008; 5(5): 1208–1213.
  3. Cayan S, Akbay E, Bozlu M, et al. The prevalence of female sexual dysfunction and potential risk factors that may impair sexual function in Turkish women. Urol Int. 2004; 72(1): 52–57.
  4. Sydow Kv. Sexuality during pregnancy and after childbirth. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1999; 47(1): 27–49.
  5. Orji EO, Ogunlola IO, Fasubaa OB. Sexuality among pregnant women in South West Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 22(2): 166–168.
  6. Astepe BS, Köleli I. A cross-sectional study of female sexual dysfunction among Turkish pregnant and nonpregnant women: correlation with hormone profile. The European Research Journal. 2018.
  7. Soykan A. The reliability and validity of Arizona sexual experiences scale in Turkish ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis. Int J Impot Res. 2004; 16(6): 531–534.
  8. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000; 26(2): 191–208.
  9. Öksüz E, Malhan S. Reliability and validity of the female sexual function index in Turkish population. Sendrom. 2005; 17: 54–59.
  10. Oksuz E, Malhan S. Prevalence and risk factors for female sexual dysfunction in Turkish women. J Urol. 2006; 175(2): 654–8; discussion 658.
  11. Soykan A. The reliability and validity of Arizona sexual experiences scale in Turkish ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis. Int J Impot Res. 2004; 16(6): 531–534.
  12. McCool ME, Zuelke A, Theurich MA, et al. Prevalence of Female Sexual Dysfunction Among Premenopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Sex Med Rev. 2016; 4(3): 197–212.
  13. Ninivaggio C, Rogers RG, Leeman L, et al. Sexual function changes during pregnancy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(6): 923–929.
  14. Seven M, Akyüz A, Güngör S. Predictors of sexual function during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 35(7): 691–695.
  15. Eryilmaz G, Ege E, Zincir H. Factors affecting sexual life during pregnancy in eastern Turkey. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004; 57(2): 103–108.
  16. Erol B, Sanli O, Korkmaz D, et al. A cross-sectional study of female sexual function and dysfunction during pregnancy. J Sex Med. 2007; 4(5): 1381–1387.
  17. Esmer AC, Akca A, Akbayir O, et al. Female sexual function and associated factors during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013; 39(6): 1165–1172.
  18. Pauleta JR, Pereira NM, Graça LM. Sexuality during pregnancy. J Sex Med. 2010; 7(1 Pt 1): 136–142.
  19. Wallwiener S, Müller M, Doster A, et al. Sexual activity and sexual dysfunction of women in the perinatal period: a longitudinal study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295(4): 873–883.
  20. Yeniel AO, Petri E. Pregnancy, childbirth, and sexual function: perceptions and facts. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25(1): 5–14.
  21. Ribeiro MC, Nakamura MU, Torloni MR, et al. Treatments of Female Sexual Dysfunction Symptoms during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev. 2014; 2(1): 1–9.
  22. Seven M, Akyüz A, Güngör S. Predictors of sexual function during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 35(7): 691–695.
  23. Aydin M, Cayonu N, Kadihasanoglu M, et al. Comparison of Sexual Functions in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women. Urol J. 2015; 12(5): 2339–2344.
  24. Ribeiro MC, Nakamura MU, Torloni MR, et al. Maternal overweight and sexual function in pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016; 95(1): 45–51.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl